IR recalulations.

I think you are wrong to blame the IT department.

Difficult to answer here - call them to discuss - their staff are usually very helpful.

In message of Fri, 11 Nov 2005, rob writes

You have the wrong years quoted here. Unless you are in arrears with your Tax Return!!

DF

Yes, should be tax code for 2005-2006. (Delete 2003-2004 and replace with "previous years")

I guess the fault lays with the admin dept. that created the standard phrases and wrote the spec. I used to work in government IT - so I'm used to taking the blame for everything.

Probably will after the weekend. I suspect that they have just recalculated the tax code I need for this year to pay - but not explained it very well.

Well, that's still wrong too. In the circumstances I wonder if you've completed your Tax Return correctly anyway, and the IR are correct to make the correction.

Box 18.1 is for underpayments in earlier years that are included in and collected in your 2004/05 PAYE coding.

Box 18.2 is for estimated underpayments for 2004/05 which are currently being collected in your 2005/06 Coding.

DF

If it is wrong then it is the fault of their software that I used to complete it online.

Which you said above was still wrong???

I am assuming now that they have decided to revise their "estimate" having received the tax return, but that their standard phrases letter generator does not have this in its vocabulary.

No I didn't - because you've snipped the relevant bit!

Read your replies again; you said (for Box 18.2) "should be tax code for

But then you delete in this email the quote that followed i.e."(Delete

Which is where my reply followed, because that statement relating to Box

Read it through logically - it strikes me that you've entered the wrong amounts in the wrong boxes and/or not understood the correct procedure for Boxes 18.1 and 18.2. The amounts to be entered in those Boxes are the figures quoted in your LAST issued Coding Notice for 2004/05 and

DF

Sorry, I wrote my posts with less care than I filled in the return. I was then trying to cut corners in agreeing to the correction.

If I can get it right now.

According to the PAYE Coding Notice 2005-06 issued 16 January 2005: There is under "amounts to be taken away from your total allowance" "Tax underpaid

In box 18.2 I put 373

According to a letter from the IR dated 3 November 2005 this amount is wrong.

In September I received a tax refund of 20.

According to the letter of 3 November (which said that the figure was wrong) I owe 353.

According to the PAYE Coding Notice 2005-06 issued 3 November 2005: There is under "amounts to be taken away from your total allowance" "Tax underpaid

The "Other Emoluments" have increased from Jan - Nov but the actual deduction for the Underpaid tax has gone down. The result is the the remaining allowance has gone up by about 430.

I can understand the concept that they may have underestimated the amount of tax they would get through the January modifications to my code. However the letter from them in November seems to be saying something quite different. I also wonder why they can't write to tell me WHY at the same time as saying WHAT they have been doing.

In message of Sun, 13 Nov 2005, rob writes

It depends which year the underpayment refers to. If it is 2003/04 (or earlier) then it should not be entered on your 2005 Tax Return, but will be entered on next year's (2006) Return at Box 18.1 (Which will then read "Underpaid tax for earlier years included in your tax code for

If it is, in fact, a 2004/05 underpayment (which is usually estimated as a result of adjusting a Code Number part way through the year), then it should be on the 2005 Tax Return at box 18.2

Somehow I get the feeling that the fist scenario applies and therefore the IR were correct in correcting your calculations.

DF

Which year is something I wouldn't know as the Coding notice just gives an amount. I shall just have to waith for the IR explanation.

But you should know, because you would have had a schedule E assessment issued at some point in the past showing the underpayment and stating the fact that it will be collected by adjustment to your Code number.

All in all, and from what I've gathered from this discussion, I feel that the underpayment arose in 2003/04 or earlier, and therefore should NOT be included on your 2005 Tax Return, but in Box 18.1 NEXT year.

DF

After a talk with a couple of people are IR who had to go away and figure it out, they agree with your final conclusion. So my tax code will have to change yet again for this next bill. ( I guess I got overconfident whith the system. Having suceeded in getting them to delete several of my UTRs over the past few years I thought everything was under control.)

I assume that the letter of explanation will say soemthing similar when it arrives.

I should not have any problems next year as they have written to say I will not need to fill out a return next year, though I wonder if I should ask for one anyway just to make sure I am on target to get everything cleared.

In message of Wed, 16 Nov 2005, rob writes

UTR stands for Unique Taxpayer Reference and by that definition you can only have one. It is 10 digits long. Any other references are likely to be PAYE references.

If you've been filling one out 'on-line' then you won't need to ask for one. If you feel you need to do one just do it on line. I frequently do for some of my clients who don't receive a 'Notice to File', but I do use commercial software rather than the IR's.

DF

I know you SHOULD only have one. For some reason three separate tax offices issued me with a different one one. I was sent a return by one office, returned it, paid it etc. Next year I received a fine notice from a completely different office. Then one from a third office... Spoke to various people in the tax office I actually deal with, and those in "Retrival" (or whatever debt and fine collection is called) and when they looked me up by NI they found 3 UTR numbers and said a collective "That's not right". They decided which one should be the real one and deleted the others.

Thanks, useful to know.